Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

Blackheart · 10-03-2003, 12:52 PM

"Why don't you ask the homosexual activists to stop pushing for laws that they, in all good conscience, think are best for the country? Why are the homosexual activists not called "intolerant" for merely having/voicing their view?

What's the difference? There is none."

Actually the difference is clear. In the first case, one group is calling for the suspension of activities of the second group, i.e. people don't want homosexuals to act in a homosexual manner.

In the second case, the group in question is asking to be free from undue regulation, i.e. homosexuals want to be left alone to live their lives the way they decide to.

The entire crux of the matter is that in the second case, homosexual activists are advocating for the right to their own private lives, free from regulation. I find it hard to comprehend how that can be construed as intolerant, since it affects no one except the individuals in question.

In the first case, there is a group of people who want to impose their will upon the second group. Even though it is none of their business, and it doesn't affect their private lives in the least. The reasons they want to impose their view of reality upon homosexuals is unclear, and has little to do with any empirical data, but stems from religious teachings, which by constitutional principle should be excluded from secular law. This could be construed as intolerant, rather easily.

Did I miss anything?

10-03-2003, 12:52 PM	#11
Blackheart Elf Lord Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Darkness Posts: 1,211	"Why don't you ask the homosexual activists to stop pushing for laws that they, in all good conscience, think are best for the country? Why are the homosexual activists not called "intolerant" for merely having/voicing their view? What's the difference? There is none." Actually the difference is clear. In the first case, one group is calling for the suspension of activities of the second group, i.e. people don't want homosexuals to act in a homosexual manner. In the second case, the group in question is asking to be free from undue regulation, i.e. homosexuals want to be left alone to live their lives the way they decide to. The entire crux of the matter is that in the second case, homosexual activists are advocating for the right to their own private lives, free from regulation. I find it hard to comprehend how that can be construed as intolerant, since it affects no one except the individuals in question. In the first case, there is a group of people who want to impose their will upon the second group. Even though it is none of their business, and it doesn't affect their private lives in the least. The reasons they want to impose their view of reality upon homosexuals is unclear, and has little to do with any empirical data, but stems from religious teachings, which by constitutional principle should be excluded from secular law. This could be construed as intolerant, rather easily. Did I miss anything? __________________ I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ...